What about making it illegal to strip metadata and to obscure or remove watermarks?

I kinda' understand the idea behind this legislation; to streamline the fair use rules and cut red tape; but I think that the "due dilligence" rule should apply to visible AND invisible watermarking. Since most methods of digital watermarking are known, any reasonable person could be expected to look for them.

Although one could assume that, if somebody removes a watermark, they intend to steal an image it is possble for one person to remove a watermark and post an image which is then used by a second person who doesn't find one, even though they looked for it. This would put the burden guilt back on the first person and serve to protect a well-intentioned subsequent person from unintended consequences.

I don't worry too much about my small sized images being stolen. If one was, (none have been, to my knowledge) I would hope it was by someone with deep enough pockets to sue into oblivion, and that there were no easy out for them, such as " we looked, we really did, and now he can have the five bucks we paid into the slush fund, instead of that unreasonable rate he really charges".

Seriously, arent there enough dime a dozen Internet stock snaps available? Do we really need legally sanctioned " i dunno's" on top of it?

Back in the days of black & white, when we covered news stories the final print size was 15"x12", and editors demanded top rate picture quality, instead of concerning themselves with lowlife showbiz "celebrities" as is the case today.

Copyright Alarm

[QUOTE=rolleiman;1437918]

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

When did newsprint ever need "pin sharp" images?
~Stone

Back in the days of black & white, when we covered news stories the final print size was 15"x12", and editors demanded top rate picture quality, instead of concerning themselves with lowlife showbiz "celebrities" as is the case today.

Oh I see... Thanks, I wish things were as they were back then sometimes... Sometimes...